Fornits
Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform => The Troubled Teen Industry => Topic started by: Anonymous on October 26, 2006, 04:59:21 PM
-
Let's put this in the arena of some other product. How about bicycles? Let's say that the bicycle industry was run the same way as the programs are. There is no real government oversight whatsoever. In a majority of bicycle purchases, the brakes will fail on critical occasions. To tell the good bikes from the bad, you can hire a "bicycle consultant" to decide what bike is right for your kid. Only thing is, these bicycle consultants are paid by bicycle manufacturers to refer to their bikes, so you can't trust any of them, either. You might try to go by word-of-mouth, but the people who bought the bikes aren't the ones riding them, and they might recommend a bike that will get your kid knocked unconscious on heavily-used train tracks. Buying a bicycle in this scenario is like playing five-bullet Russian Roulette with your kid. Oh, these bullets won't kill him- they'll just fuck him up for life.
"But aha!", I hear. "I know not to buy any WWASPS bikes. I'm sure not going to buy anything from Aspen. I'll also use the ISAC Bad Bikes watchlist to make sure I don't get a defective bike for my kid."
Are you safer? Statistically speaking, yes- but not actually safe. You're still playing Russian Roulette, you've just reduced the number of bullets. Maybe there's only two bullets in a six-chamber gun, now. Maybe just one. It's still the same lethal game. Your kid still has a very good chance of coming out fucked up.
Really, would any parent buy a bicycle for their kid, from any manufacturer, if the situation was actually like this? Hell no. They wouldn't tolerate it. They'd demand regulation. Anyone selling a bad bike would be held liable and prosecuted to oblivion.
And if it wasn't for all the cult bullshit and emotional manipulation done by the programmies, this industry would end up the same way.
-
In the mid 1960s Ralph Nader wrote the book Unsafe At Any Speed. There are two concepts that bear reviewing.
At that time in history, the general view of the free market was 'caveat emptor' or 'let the buyer beware.' Nader stated two flaws in this idea:
1. It presupposes that businesses want to stay in business. A bad product would earn a bad reputation and people would stop buying. Nader points out that some companies will simply take the money and run. They can move to a new location just like the snake oil sellers of old, and sell to a new unsuspecting market.
Programs, when caught, do the same. The same people sell the same product under a different name and in a different place.
2. It presupposes technical knowledge. The book was about the automobile industry and Nader pointed out that the average car buyer was not qualified to judge the safety or reliability of a car. He must trust the manufacturer.
Once again, parents are not qualified to judge the appropriateness or safety of different therapies. They are certainly not qualified to implement treatment. It takes skilled professionals (not self styled ed-cons) to do this.
In the case of the auto industry, policies were established and regulations enacted to protect the consumer.
In the case of Programs, there is no regulation or consumer protection. Programs actively fight off any attempt to establish any such protections because they know they would fail under any meaningful scrutiny.
Medical Hospitals run under strict licensing rules and must follow sound, established, medical practices. Consumers have the right to get second opinions or even to refuse treatment. Insurance companies only pay for tried and true diagnosis and treatment.
Programs, which really fall under the mental health category hide from this very real classification by changing their stated mission (school, treatment center, etc) specifically to avoid the associated rules. That alone places their methods under a cloud of suspicion.
Parents should be fully aware when placing their child into a program that caveat emptor is the rule of the day. Beware. Neither you nor your child is protected by any laws or regulations or overseeing agencies in this field. They just don't exist. These organizations can make any claim they want and use any methods they want in the name of 'helping' your child. These programs were not designed by nor endorsed by any medical or mental health experts. They were founded by amateurs, are run by amateurs, and have no accountability for any harm they may do.
Still want to buy their product?
-
I think it is a wider philospohical issue.
It makes sense to me that when your kid is in real trouble and you are at a loss as to how to help them, you would seek help. It does not make sense that you would send them to someone who claims to treat a wide variety of issues without specialising in one or that cuts out or monitors contact with the outside world or takes a punitive approach or limits contact within the family. Most programmes that i have seen advertised appear to do one or more of these things, even the ones that look fairly compassionate.
The thing about programmes is that the promote the idea that parenting a child with any diffuculties or troubles is something that can and should be outsourced to someone else. This promotes the notion that children are disposable and that love for them is conditional on convenience
-
I find teen programs to be similar to religion, in the sense that there are people who claim the program saved their life. They give away their own personal credit for whatever they did to improve themsleves and give it up to their new higher power, their program. WWASPS does this to a high degree, but it's similar in a lot of programs, and even AA type programs as well. It's pretty convincing when someone sincerely tells you that a certain program saved their life, because they believe it. Meanwhile, the unorganized bunch of disgruntles who have a different opinion tend not to get heard. And when they do, their subtle damnation is drowned out by the overly zelous testimony of those singing the praises of what they perceive to be their and their families savior. That's why it's such a tough battle. They aren't dumb, they know what they are doing.
They other sad thing I see is that parents seem to be getting exactly what they want. Their kid enters the psychiatric system and they see no results and they think their kid needs some sort of special alternative treatment, and get a romantic sense of getting back to nature and hard work, and all that. I read that one post by Lon Woodbury about how these programs came out of cults from the 60's and he's boasting as if he's proud of it. What's really scary is they don't hide their history or intentions and still they are more popular than ever. It's sad to say but now all my friends are having kids and they will probably send their kids to programs too, it will continue for some reason. Personally, I just think most people are crazy, and the crazy people seem the most sane.
-
They are certainly not qualified to implement treatment. It takes skilled professionals (not self styled ed-cons) to do this.
How is a parent to tell the difference? Who are they to trust. When the first place they go is the internet, they are cought up in the spamdexed mess of the ed-cons. Only porn sites use tactics so low as they do.
When reputable psychologists, who refer to ed-cons, get glowing reports from parents, they keep referring to the ed-cons. Most of the time the truth does not come out, and as such, the perception is that the ex-cons and programs they recommend are doing their jobs.
In the case of the auto industry, policies were established and regulations enacted to protect the consumer.
In the case of Programs, there is no regulation or consumer protection. Programs actively fight off any attempt to establish any such protections because they know they would fail under any meaningful scrutiny.
They argue that their methods are good, and would be misunderstood by those who looked to scrutinize their methods, in the words of Jayne Longnecker, program director of where i was at, in a letter to my father:
"I am not eager for parents to get involved in the questions surrounding therapy anymore than I am eager to explain the in's and out's of our emotional growth program" - Jayne S. Longnecker
Yes Jayne i have the letters -- all of them. ::bigsmilebounce::
And yet the parents trust these people becuase they are so convincing in the lies that they tell (and yes i can prove that Jayne). Con artists, have the communications and propoganda upper hand. I'm not so sure regulation could work, given how much these people already ignore existing law.
Personally i'm in favor of outlawing all programs unless regulation is truly enforced, and a child hotline is instituted that anybody may call, unattended, at any time. This is the way it is done in the UK and it works.
Medical Hospitals run under strict licensing rules and must follow sound, established, medical practices. Consumers have the right to get second opinions or even to refuse treatment. Insurance companies only pay for tried and true diagnosis and treatment.
The US never signed the UN Declaration of the Rights of the Child. As such, the real "consumer" in this case, has few rights if any. Even if a child has rights, what use are they if he/she does not know about them. I'm a US citizen, but grew up in Europe. You can call me a hippie liberal whatever, but i've noticed that in the States there is a lack of respect as to the desires of the child.
Parents view their teenagers as their responsibility, and attempt to coddle them, protecting them from the world. In my opinion, this does not teach a child to be responsible for his/her actions and inevitably results in a desire to seperate, which takes it's form as rebellion and/or destructive behaviour.
A good psychologist would spot this pattern and explain to the parents that it is just a part of growing up. Unfortunately, psychologists are not always consulted, or are only consulted by the parents (without the child) who often stress only the bad behaviour and cannot see the psychological meaning. These types of conflicts can easily be dealt with by therapy, thereby healing the family relationship instead of fracturing it irreparably as programs are likely to do.
Programs, which really fall under the mental health category hide from this very real classification by changing their stated mission (school, treatment center, etc) specifically to avoid the associated rules. That alone places their methods under a cloud of suspicion.
Maybe to the educated Fornits poster, or one who has been to program, but not to the average Joe on the street. Had i not experienced and seen what i did, i would not have believed it. This is why i did not blame my parents (especially after reading the parent-program correspondance). Ironically, realization of the BS we were both told has brought us closer than ever together. It is sad that so many families never reconcile.
Parents should be fully aware when placing their child into a program that caveat emptor is the rule of the day. Beware. Neither you nor your child is protected by any laws or regulations or overseeing agencies in this field. They just don't exist. These organizations can make any claim they want and use any methods they want in the name of 'helping' your child. These programs were not designed by nor endorsed by any medical or mental health experts. They were founded by amateurs, are run by amateurs, and have no accountability for any harm they may do.
Still want to buy their product?
Yes, but they can have fancy little "Woodbury Reports Seal of Excellence" gifs on their webpage. Not to mention NATSAP which sounds really official and trustworthy. It's all about marketing. Who is to educate the parents to these facts?
Clealy fornits can help clear things up, as well as other informational pages, such as ISAC, but the propoganda is clearly in the hands of the programs. I wonder how this could be resolved?
-
I read that one post by Lon Woodbury about how these programs came out of cults from the 60's and he's boasting as if he's proud of it.
He's referring to Synanon, which helped many heroin addicts, by transforming them into cultists. Arguably they are "better" since they are not dead, but whether they are "alive" is questionable as well.
-
The United States never signed the UN Declaration of the Rights of the Child because there are some States that allow the death penalty for minors and also allow for a sentence of life without the possibility of parole. Some States also allow that juveniles charged and convicted as adults are incarcerated in adult prisons. All of these things violate the UN Declaration and make me ashamed of my country.
Parents view their teenagers as their responsibility, and attempt to coddle them, protecting them from the world. In my opinion, this does not teach a child to be responsible for his/her actions and inevitably results in a desire to seperate, which takes it's form as rebellion and/or destructive behaviour.
While this seems to be more the norm, I don't think most parents are that bad. Remember, most kids do not end up in programs or have any real trouble. Today, I sat at lunch with six other men. I am an older parent at 45 with a 9 year old son. These guys were my age and older with teenage and adult kids. They were comparing stories of their errant teens and laughing about them. One man's 16 year old had the unfortunate habit of always getting caught. He was driving a Jeep with two other friends when he tossed a beer can out the back of the Jeep, and onto the hood of a police car. Oops! On another occasion the parents left town for the weekend. The boy was told, no parties and no driving Mom's vintage sports car. The parents returned early and found the car 'missing.' They put their car in the garage where the sports car was and went to bed. In the wee hours they hear the powerful roar of the car returning. The front door opens and the giggles of teenage girls are heard. The boy goes through the kitchen, to the door leading into the garage (to open the garage door from the inside). He sees his parents car. His parents then hear him say, "Shit! Everybody get out of the house!" The father was laughing as he told this story. All of us could relate similar stories about ourselves as teenagers. Shit happens. Programs not needed. The boy, now a young adult, is doing fine.
Maybe to the educated Fornits poster, or one who has been to program, but not to the average Joe on the street. Had i not experienced and seen what i did, i would not have believed it. This is why i did not blame my parents (especially after reading the parent-program correspondance). Ironically, realization of the BS we were both told has brought us closer than ever together. It is sad that so many families never reconcile.
I don't mean to dis your parents, but I think you underestimate most parents. When my child was examined by two ISPs and the proposed IED included special schools for emotionally troubled kids, my ex-wife and I successfully fought them off. Our son remained in regular classes and passed through 3rd grade with straight As. We knew it was just the divorce causing his problems. During the process, I met many parents who have 'special needs' kids. Some of them really have needs, but in other cases the parents also have rejected the 'program' and kept their kids in regular classes. These parents made themselves experts in whatever area their kid needed special attention in. They would not be fooled by program literature. They questioned everything about what their kids were going through and were deeply involved on a daily basis. Of course, the schools my son attended were charter and private schools where the parents tend to be more involved.
I like to think that parents who would send their kids into a program are in the minority.
-
I like to think that parents who would send their kids into a program are in the minority.
I believe this to be true as well; however, if there are only 10 percent of American parents willing to send their kids to these programs, that is still a lot of parents. I don't think programs have a hard time finding enough warm bodies to fill their beds.
-
Where's CCM girl? She's the one who's been promoting "good programs" lately. She should be in on this.
-
parent's perpetuate the myth of them being duped to avoid the guilt. look at wwasps for example, the parents go to seminars too. they look at the program as their own self help program, they are selfish and crazy and their kids grow up and see them for what they are. wwasps especially is a parent driven business, look at sou chef for example. its time to put blame wher eit belongs, with all the parents who support this kind fo treatment! :flame:
-
parent's perpetuate the myth of them being duped to avoid the guilt. look at wwasps for example, the parents go to seminars too. they look at the program as their own self help program, they are selfish and crazy and their kids grow up and see them for what they are. wwasps especially is a parent driven business, look at sou chef for example. its time to put blame wher eit belongs, with all the parents who support this kind fo treatment! :flame:
Well that's what i thought about my parents until i read the correspondance for myself between them and the program. I can tell you they were 100% duped. The propoganda was masterful. This may not mean all parents. Just what i believe to be most.
For parents to have full knowledge of what went on, and to do nothing... They would almost have to be completely devoid of any humanity whatsoever. Perhaps some suspected, and have to be in denial about it to survive, as you suggest. But suspecting is not the same as knowledge.
If you're still bitter against your parents, (as i would assume, perhaps wrongly) I suggest you give them the benefit of the doubt.
-
I can buy that parents were somewhat duped, but if they didn't know.......they fucking SHOULD have!!!
-
I can buy that parents were somewhat duped, but if they didn't know.......they fucking SHOULD have!!!
Why should they have been? Perhaps they did make some errors but if they were told one thing and it was not true how is this ALL their fault? This is the same to me as the parents who argue that the family problems are all the kids fault. The true evil here seems to be the programmes themselves which take people in stressful situations and take advantage of them when perhaps both parents and kid are in a vulnerable position.
-
I have as much sympathy for the parent's argument of ignorance as i do of the fat person with diabetes who wants to sue mcdonalds for getting fat. It's no excuse. Wait until you grow up and have kids of your own and retake a look at program literature like wwasps and you wil be horrified at the idea of sending your kid... but why did your parents do it? hmmm
-
parent's perpetuate the myth of them being duped to avoid the guilt. look at wwasps for example, the parents go to seminars too. they look at the program as their own self help program, they are selfish and crazy and their kids grow up and see them for what they are. wwasps especially is a parent driven business, look at sou chef for example. its time to put blame wher eit belongs, with all the parents who support this kind fo treatment! :flame:
Well that's what i thought about my parents until i read the correspondance for myself between them and the program. I can tell you they were 100% duped. The propoganda was masterful. This may not mean all parents. Just what i believe to be most.
For parents to have full knowledge of what went on, and to do nothing... They would almost have to be completely devoid of any humanity whatsoever. Perhaps some suspected, and have to be in denial about it to survive, as you suggest. But suspecting is not the same as knowledge.
If you're still bitter against your parents, (as i would assume, perhaps wrongly) I suggest you give them the benefit of the doubt.
Your parents sent you to an environment where it was possible for them to be fooled. Most parent wouldn't even allow that, because they know how people are, especially poor townsfolk working for minimum wage working for a huge corporation. If I am a parent and someone sells me a service on the street, lets say, they offer to babysit my child while I go into the store and go shopping. What would you do? i wouldn't trust them, and reject the offer. Program parents seem to have no problem trusting strangers, and people they NEVER MET with the care of their child, and STILl believe everything they say as fact? Come on -- parents are smarter than that, they ALLOW themsleves to be fooled. There is a difference between being conned, and letting yoruself be conned.
-
Where's CCM girl? She's the one who's been promoting "good programs" lately. She should be in on this.
Very funny! I wish I knew who my little buddy was here. Get off it! For crying out loud I mentioned a couple programs that worked for me, big freakin deal. :roll:
-
Where's CCM girl? She's the one who's been promoting "good programs" lately. She should be in on this.
Very funny! I wish I knew who my little buddy was here. Get off it! For crying out loud I mentioned a couple programs that worked for me, big freakin deal. :roll:
It was a little more than that. You told people that anyone who doesn't believe there are good programs out there is an idiot. It struck a nerve with a few people and we said something about it. Now a thread has been started to specifically address that particular issue and you're nowhere to be found so I asked where you were. Big freakin deal. :roll:
-
Fine, you have a point. Probably what I should have said was something more along the lines that people are being close minded if they really truely believe that there are not some good programs, mixed in with the thousands that exist. That 100% of programs are bad, and abusive. It's just not possible.
I however DO believe that there are a lot of programs that are bad, and harmful to a child. But, I am not going to slap a label on all of them that say they are all BAD!
-
I will. All programs that use the therapeutic community approach are BAD BAD BAD!
-
Fine, you have a point. Probably what I should have said was something more along the lines that people are being close minded if they really truely believe that there are not some good programs, mixed in with the thousands that exist. That 100% of programs are bad, and abusive. It's just not possible.
I however DO believe that there are a lot of programs that are bad, and harmful to a child. But, I am not going to slap a label on all of them that say they are all BAD!
i am sure there is a decent program thrown in here and there, but how would parents discern the difference. until the government comes up with a way to supervise, monitor, and regulate these programs they should all be shut down to stop the abuse of children. i would rather tag them all bad and shut them down than leave 1000 open to harm our children because there are 2 good ones open. the end doesnt justify the means. a few children get help at the expense of many others. or here is a concept: how about parents get back to being parents and quit sending there children away in the first place. the programs are the supply and the parents are the demand. without demand there would be no need for supply.
-
Part of the problem is that "good" is defined as non abusive. Lets say a programme adequately feeds kids, does not physically abuse them or force "therapy" onto them or have bizarre punishments and petty level systems. This merely means that the kid wont come out traumatised by the experience. It does not really actively help with whatever problem the kids is there for.
If a place has kids from 12 to 18 and claims to treat everything from brattiness, to aspergers, to adoption issues to alcohol and drug use this to me is a red flag because the range of issues and kids is so broad and very few "therapists" are qualified to look after so many things. It encourages the idea that it is ok for a kid who is causing their family any level of grief to become some well paid stanger's complete responsibility. Because a kid prefers a programme to life at home does not mean that the programme is good. It could just mean that life at home is really shit.
-
Part of the problem is that "good" is defined as non abusive. Lets say a programme adequately feeds kids, does not physically abuse them or force "therapy" onto them or have bizarre punishments and petty level systems. This merely means that the kid wont come out traumatised by the experience. It does not really actively help with whatever problem the kids is there for.
If a place has kids from 12 to 18 and claims to treat everything from brattiness, to aspergers, to adoption issues to alcohol and drug use this to me is a red flag because the range of issues and kids is so broad and very few "therapists" are qualified to look after so many things. It encourages the idea that it is ok for a kid who is causing their family any level of grief to become some well paid stanger's complete responsibility. Because a kid prefers a programme to life at home does not mean that the programme is good. It could just mean that life at home is really shit.
i agree with you. there are no "good" programs by my standards of the definition, however to attend a non-abusive program compared to the four years of horror i went through, and to come out not traumatised compared to what i deal with on a daily basis would be "good". dont get me wrong , i despise all programs, even the non-abusive ones. they remind me of title loan places and rent to own stores,they are just waiting to prey on parents who feel helpless. parents need to step up and realize they are hurting their children for life. maybe i could have found something positive to draw from if i had not been abused, now, on the contrary, life is a daily struggle for me. if you ask me there is no place in our country for any of them.
-
Part of the problem is that "good" is defined as non abusive. Lets say a programme adequately feeds kids, does not physically abuse them or force "therapy" onto them or have bizarre punishments and petty level systems. This merely means that the kid wont come out traumatised by the experience. It does not really actively help with whatever problem the kids is there for.
If a place has kids from 12 to 18 and claims to treat everything from brattiness, to aspergers, to adoption issues to alcohol and drug use this to me is a red flag because the range of issues and kids is so broad and very few "therapists" are qualified to look after so many things. It encourages the idea that it is ok for a kid who is causing their family any level of grief to become some well paid stanger's complete responsibility. Because a kid prefers a programme to life at home does not mean that the programme is good. It could just mean that life at home is really shit.
i agree with you. there are no "good" programs by my standards of the definition, however to attend a non-abusive program compared to the four years of horror i went through, and to come out not traumatised compared to what i deal with on a daily basis would be "good". dont get me wrong , i despise all programs, even the non-abusive ones. they remind me of title loan places and rent to own stores,they are just waiting to prey on parents who feel helpless. parents need to step up and realize they are hurting their children for life. maybe i could have found something positive to draw from if i had not been abused, now, on the contrary, life is a daily struggle for me. if you ask me there is no place in our country for any of them.
oops, i dont know what my issue is with logging in.
-
Bumpity bump. I'm not so egotistical as to sticky my own topics.
-
Aaaaaaaaand another bump.
-
NECROPOST OLD MILK THREAD
-
exactly..
A cell no matter how comfortable and nice it happens to be is still a damn cell.
-
needs a bump
-
epic thread.